Replies

There is absolutely no record of Peter having ever been in Rome. The RCC tries to rest their hope on a passage in scripture that even they have to admit doesn’t really work very well. They try to convince us that when Peter said he was writing from Babylon that he was actually in Rome and was using a coded word to refer to Rome to hide his actual wherabouts. The problem with that was that the use of the word Babylon in reference to Rome didn’t come into usage until after 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem long after Peter had been martyred.

On the basis of the New Testament account, it would have been very possible for Peter to write his epistle from the city or province of Babylon itself. His ministry was to the Jews, and, as writings from subsequent centuries establish, Babylon was a center of Judaism both before and long after Peter.

Embarrassingly, in the 1950s Roman Catholic archaeologists discovered a tomb in Jerusalem containing an ossuary—a bone box used in first-century Jewish burials—that bore the engraved name “Simon Bar Jona” (a name by which the apostle Peter is known in the Gospels).

The Vatican soon produced its own archaeological evidence that Peter’s tomb and remains were buried under the high altar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. At the heart of its argument was a sarcophagus discovered in the first half of the century, which authorities began examining more closely in the years after the Second World War.

While Pope Pius XII in 1953 announced that the true remains of St Peter had been found, many scholars have remained skeptical about the significance of the discoveries. While many in the RCC want it to be true there is more evidence that it is not then opinion that it is.

CynicalBear:

Actually, there is a record of him being in Rome. St. Clement of Rome alludes to it in 90-95 AD in his letter to the Church at Corinth. St. Ignatius writings in circa 107 AD clearly indicates that Peter and Paul were both in Rome. St. Irenaeus of Lyon writing circa 170-175 AD also attests that St. Peter and Paul were in Rome. Tertullian, writing while still an orthodox Catholic mentions it

So I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am only providing evidence from writings of the 1st century that attest to St. Peter and Paul being in Rome, writings that are universally accepted among the Catholic, Orthodox Church and the Anglican and Lutheran Traditions. From what I gathered, most of the Reformed CHurch Historians today in Europe alo recognize the 7 letter Ignatian corpus as authentic as well as St. Ireanaeus’s writings.

Two Patristic Scholars, one Lutheran-Reformed J. Pelikan [he became Orthodox before he died] and the Anglican Chadwick clearly review the evidence and totally refute your post and views.

For example, Jaraslov Pelikan the Professor of Church History at Cornell in Volume 1 of his 5- volume work “The CHristian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine” entitled THe Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [100AD-600AD], which was written while he was a Reformed-Lutheran writes “But Rome is where both Peter and Paul had been martyred and were buried and this had given the CHurch of ROme a unique eminence as early as the time of Tertuillian” (p.354).

The great Anglican Patristic Scholar Henry Chadwick, professor at both OxFord and Cambridge and Pastor at the major Anglican “Christ Church” at Oxford writes of St. Peter that the martyrdom of St. Peter is alluded to in the Gospel of John. That it took place at Rome is “Highly Probable” from the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ignatius Letter to the Romans and the unamimous tradition of the second century writers and the fact that a monumment was built on Vatican Hill in 160 AD which marked the spot of Peter’s killing [See The Pengiun History of the Church: The Early Church, Revised Edition, 1993 Pengiun Books, p.18]

In summary, the evidence seems to clearly refute your personal opinion on the question of whether ST. Peter was in Rome.

There is no record of Peter having ever been in Babylon, either.

By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (Wikipedia)

There is strong indication in Revelation that “Babylon” was a reference to Jerusalem, the object of divine wrath.

Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. (Rev. 16:19)

The phrase “great city” is a reference to Jerusalem, as we see in Rev. 11:8.

Josephus records how during the siege of Jerusalem that the city was divided into three factions.

“it so happened that the sedition at Jerusalem was revived, and parted into three factions, and that one faction fought against the other; which partition in such evil cases may be said to be a good thing, and the effect of divine justice.” (War of the Jews, 5:1:1)

We also see in Revelation a strong correlation between the “great harlot” (old Jerusalem) and the Lamb's bride (new Jerusalem).